Verse Ex14-12a discussing the temporary regrets of the Jews, of leaving Egypt, due to the pursuit of the Egyptian army, states Is not this the word that we spoke unto thee in Egypt, saying: Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it were better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness.' . The underlined words we should die in the wilderness.' echo a reference to an almost identical complaint, when Moses and Aaron first tried to release the Jews from Egypt: Ex05-21 states and they said unto them: 'The HaShem look upon you, and judge; because ye have made our savour to be abhorred in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of his servants, to put a sword in their hand to slay us.'

Sermonic points: Rashi makes a moral point here: The Jews complained once and were proven wrong (since, contrary, to their complaint, they were redeemed). Nevertheless, they went back to complaining. As is clear from Nu13-Nu15, the constant complaining of the Jews -- slandering God Himself -- led to God denying the Jews the right to enter the holy land. This is an important point in repentance --- although ultimately people are punished for one particular act, very often they have been given multiple chances to repent.

Verse Ex14-24a describing how God overthrew the pursuing Egyptian Army near dawn states And it came to pass at the morning guard, that HaShem looked forth upon the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of cloud, and discomfited the host of the Egyptians. Rashi explains the idiom, morning guard, as illustrating the figure of speech technique, metonomy, naming by something related: The night was divided up into three shifts -- each shift had a different round of guards for palaces, temples etc. Even the ministering angels are seen as having shifts. The morning guard refers to the last shift of the night, the one near morning. Here, a time slot--prior to dawn--is named by related activities -- the morning guard. The naming of an entity by something related is called in literature, metonomy.

Common examples of metonomy include
• naming sexual passion and anger heat Gn30-38d
• naming concealing murder covering blood Gn37-26b;
• naming Temple coins holy coins Ex30-13c
• naming a person with numerous assets heavy Gn13-02
• naming the arm the hand Gn24-18a
• naming the nations of the word, one end of heaven to the other end of heaven Dt04-32b
• naming the household, the inhabitants of the house, the house Gn12-17b

Sermonic points: Humorously, Rashi is actually painting a typical western movie drama. The Egyptians are pursuing the Jews. The Jews complain they have been defeated. God could just shoot the Egyptians down immediately. But no the ride goes on. It is morning and still no word from God. The Egyptians are about to overtake the Jews. The Jews are fleeing and totally helpless. And then in typical movie style, God steps in and defeats the Egyptians. The Jews escape and sing songs of praise.

I have not seen such an approach in our traditional commentaries but Rashi's emphasis that this happened near morning seems to support such a perspective.

A powerful Rashi rule describes, not the meaning of individual words and sentences, but the relationship between consecutive sentences and paragraphs. Rashi had three basic methods to relate consecutive sentences:
• cause-effect, enablement,
• contrast
• unified theme (commonality)
By revealing the connection between consecutive sentences the meaning of the paragraph as a whole is enhanced.

Verses Ex14-01:03 show a cause-effect relationship between sentences. Here, we have incorporated Rashi's causal connective into the body of the translation and indicated it with the bracketed type-font insertion. The underlined phrases emphasize the causal relationship. And HaShem spoke unto Moses, saying: Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn back and encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, before the land of the north-god, over against it shall ye encamp by the sea. And [because of this turning back] Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel: They are entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in.

Sermonic points: Rashi, as indicated by the underlined words, portrays God as enticing Pharoh into believing that the Egyptian gods (the gods of the north)were forcing the Jews to turn back. Pharoh then decided that perhaps the god of the north could defeat the Jewish god. He therefore pursued and was destroyed.

The idea of seducing a criminal into further criminal activity is never allowed in Jewish law except with a person who himself causes others to sin. Thus this Rashi heightens Pharoh's evil.

Note the alignment in the following Biblical verselets, in Ex15-11a, both of which describe God's greatness:
• Who is like unto Thee,O HaShem,
  • among the mighty?
• who is like unto Thee,
  • glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?
The underlined phrases form a common stem -- who is like unto thee -- while the remaining phrases are seen, by virtue of the alignment, as complementing each other. Hence Rashi translates Aleph-Lamed-Yud-Mem as meaning mighty since this complements the other words holiness, praise, wonders.

Advanced Rashi: Superficially Rashi seems to be using the REFERENCE-meaning method. Rashi cites several verses where the Hebrew Aleph-Lamed-Yud-Mem means might.

However Aleph-Lamed-Yud-Mem can mean lots of things might, gods, leaders. It is the alignment that drives Rashi to select one meaning over the others --- Rashi selected the meaning might since this meaning of Aleph-Lamed-Yud-Mem is consistent with the other attributes that align with might: might, holiness, and wonderous. Thus we believe the major driving force behind this Rashi is the alignment which defines a context which in turn suggests which meaning of Aleph-Lamed-Yud-Mem to select.

Note the contradiction in the following verses.
• Verse Ex09-06 discussing the plague of pestilence which killed the Egyptian animals states And HaShem did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died; but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one. ;
• Verse Ex10-26 discussing what the Jews intended to take when they left Egypt states Our cattle also shall go with us; there shall not a hoof be left behind; for thereof must we take to serve HaShem our G-d; and we know not with what we must serve HaShem, until we come thither.'
• Verse Ex14-07 discussing the pursuit of the Jews, by the Egyptian army, after they left, states And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over all of them.

We see the contradiction hinted at by the underlined words:
• The Egyptians pursued the Jews, presumably with animal driven chariots
• But the Egyptian animals were all killed in the plague of pestilence
• and the Jews took their own animals when they left Egypt
So if the Jews took their animals and the Egyptian animals were killed where did the animals to drive the Egyptian chariots come from?

Rashi resolves this using the two aspects method of resoulution. We read in the plague of hail that there were two types of Egyptians---
• The animals of those who did not believe in God died from the hail
• The animals of those who did believe in God were gathered into the house and consequently did not die from the hail
Indeed, verses Ex09-18:21 states Behold, tomorrow about this time I will cause it to rain a very grievous hail, such as hath not been in Egypt since the day it was founded even until now. Now therefore send, hasten in thy cattle and all that thou hast in the field; for every man and beast that shall be found in the field, and shall not be brought home, the hail shall come down upon them, and they shall die.' He that feared the word of HaShem among the servants of Pharaoh made his servants and his cattle flee into the houses; and he that regarded not the word of HaShem left his servants and his cattle in the field.

So the resolution is simple: Pharoh pursued the Jews with the animals of those Egyptians who believed in God and gathered their animals in the house to avoid them dying from the hail.

Sermonic points: The sermonic point inferred from this Rashi is obvious and Rashi himself says it You should not even trust the believers amongst the wicked. For indeed those who believed in God and saved their animals from death then double-crossed God by donating their animals to pursue the Jews.

Verse Ex17-11a describing the war of the Jews against Amalayk states And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed. The Talmud wryly asks: Do then Moses' hands create victory that when he raises them they were victorious but when he lowers them they were losing. But rather the verse is interpreted to mean When Moses raised his hands in prayer the Jews were victorious and when he lowered them they were losing.

This interpretation appears slightly fanciful. To justify it requires a database query: In various moral episodes do we find spiritual leaders reinforcing necessary moral values with symbolic gestures? The answer to this query uncovers several such instances. These instances reinforce the reinterpretation approach indicated above. We present below half a dozen examples where symbolic gestures reinforce moral norms.
• Nu21-09a discussing the copper snake Moses made to cure the Jews who were being bitten by snakes for slandering God states And Moses made a serpent of brass, and set it upon the pole; and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he looked unto the serpent of brass, he lived. Here the people looking up to the snake is a symbolic gesture reminding them to pray to the God whom they slandered in order to repent from their slander and thereby earn merit to be cured.
• Gn06-14a discussing the Ark made by Noach to save the Jews states Make thee an ark of lava wood; with rooms shalt thou make the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. Here Noah made the ark of lava wood to symbolize that the generation of the flood would be punished with molten lava for their sins if they did not repent.
• Ex20-23a discussing the prohibition of ascending the ark in steps vs a ramp states Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto Mine altar, that thy nakedness be not uncovered thereon. Here the steps on a staircase, vs. a ramp, uncovers more nakedness and embarasses the steps. The anthropomorphic implication is that we should not embarass stones and how much more so we should not embarass our fellow human beings. It turns out that the Hebrew word for steps, Mem Ayin Lamed Tauv is also the Hebrew root for fantasies. Thus we have a further reinforcement of our moral norm.
• Ex17-11a discussing the war of the Jews and Amalayk states And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed. Here Moses raising his hands is symbolic of urging Jews to raise their hands in prayer which is the real reason they are winning.
• Lv20-15a presents the punishment of a death penalty to an animal who sleeps with a person. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death; and ye shall slay the beast. This symbolically affirms how serious sexual crimes are. If we execute animals who violate them how much more so will the people who violate sexual norms be punished.
• Dt12-02 discussing the requirement to destroy idolatrous trees reinforces the requirement of avoiding idolatrous people: Ye shall surely destroy all the places, wherein the nations that ye are to dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every leafy tree.

Sermonic Points: The idea is clear. If we in our daily lives wish to reinforce some moral norm we should use symbolic gestures.